MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM v Pendakwa Raya

b-05sh-351-09-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 13 July 2025 • B-05(SH)-351-09/2023 • 25 min read
14 cases cited (0 SG, 14 foreign)

Catchwords

Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 – pra-syarat di bawah Seksyen 32(1)(i) Akta Keterangan 1950 – isu ketiadaan siasatan forensik berkenaan penimbulan cap jari dan DNA pada dadah - Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 - isu kegagalan memanggil Sathianathan a/l Marimuthu dan pemakaian anggapan menurut Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 - anggapan di bawah Seksyen 37(d) ADB di atas imbangan kebarangkalian gagal dipatahkan - pembelaan Perayu bersifat penafian semata-mata

Practice Areas

Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Delivered Azmi bin Ariffin Coram Hashim bin Hamzah Coram

Counsel (4)

Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc Firm Ashrul Haikal Counsel Appellant Noor Farhana binti Adham Counsel Prosecution Swinder Singh Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Mugunthan a/l Manickam Appellant

Case Significance

MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM v Pendakwa Raya is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated July 13, 2025 (citation: b-05sh-351-09-2023). <p>The appellant, Mugunthan, was convicted of trafficking dangerous drugs under s.39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes. The key issues were the absence of forensic investigation (fingerprints and DNA), the failure to call a key witness (Sathianathan), and the defence of bare denial. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding the conviction safe and the sentence was the minimum prescribed by law.</p> The panel comprised Azman bin Abdullah, Azmi bin Ariffin and Hashim bin Hamzah, with Azman bin Abdullah delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Ashrul Haikal (counsel for appellant), Noor Farhana binti Adham (prosecution counsel), Swinder Singh (counsel for appellant).

Summary

The appellant, Mugunthan, was convicted of trafficking dangerous drugs under s.39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes. The key issues were the absence of forensic investigation (fingerprints and DNA), the failure to call a key witness (Sathianathan), and the defence of bare denial. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding the conviction safe and the sentence was the minimum prescribed by law.

What was the outcome of MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM v Pendakwa Raya?

<p>The appellant, Mugunthan, was convicted of trafficking dangerous drugs under s.39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonm...

Cases Cited (14)

MY (14)
[1956] 1 MLJ 237 [1977] 1 MLJ 15 [1985] 1 MLJ 234 [1987] 1 CLJ 250 [1987] 1 MLJ 492 [1997] 1 CLJ 233 [2007] 4 CLJ 337 [2008] 4 CLJ 764 [2010] 5 CLJ 240 [2013] 3 MLJ 630 [2013] 4 CLJ 149 [2014] 2 MLJ 18 [2017] 1 CLJ 575 [2017] MLJU 1216